Change of Call after partner had bid

[AndreSteff]

The Auction:

1♠ pass 2♣

 

Opener now sees to his horror that while he meant to open 1♥ he has bid 1 ♠ and removes the spade leaflet from his pile of bidding cards.

How do we deal with this?

If we disallow the change does a Lead rectification apply?

[gordontd]

Nonsense deleted. Maybe it's better if I don't muse aloud on a keyboard when in a post-migraine haze. B) Edited November 18, 2010 by gordontd

[Free]

This is gonna be a massacre. Lots of UI is available now, but responder may not use it! :D

[Finch]

To use a technical term, opener is stuffed. Once partner has bid, it's too late.

[AndreSteff]

He's too late to change anything, and he's attempted to bid 1♥ out of turn. Does his LHO wish to accept this?

 

Exactly about this interpretation I have a difference of opinion with a renowned TD. Other responders do not seem to support handling this through Law 27, but Only through the Laws 25 and 16D. Or am I mistaken?

[iviehoff]

If you think this is an insufficient call out of rotation, you apply L27. If you think it is an attempt to change an unintended call, sadly too late, you apply L25. Clearly we have to choose one or the other, we can't do both. We know this is an attempt to change a call, because (1) the player tells us so and (2) we see his attempt to withdraw the orginal call. Having firmly established that it is an attempt to change an unintended call, it seems sensible to apply the laws applying to that situation. Since the laws give us entirely adequate instructions on how to deal with this situation, it would be bizarre to find a reason to apply some different law - that's the kind of thing we do when we don't have adequate rules to deal with the precise situation that arose.

 

As you say, 16D is relevant. 16D refers to "withdrawn" calls. But we are not applying 16D because this is a withdrawn call. Rather we are applying it because L25 tells us to: this is a cancelled call, but L25 tells us to apply 16D to this cancelled call, implicitly as if it was a withdrawn call.

 

The lead penalties at L26 do not apply, because it is not a withdrawn call within the sense of L26 (L26 talks of the player choosing a different final call, which did not happen here), but a cancelled call.

[blackshoe]

I agree that Law 25 seems to be the right law. Suppose opener's LHO accepts the change of call (25B1). I presume the subsequent calls (Pass by the opener's LHO, 2♣ by responder) are withdrawn, and the auction proceeds anew from the opening bid. The law doesn't seem to say that, but it doesn't make sense to me that those calls would stand.

[bluejak]

On the New Zealand website someone asked why Law 25A2 is there. Perhaps this is the answer: once partner has called offender's LHO cannot accept the replacement call under Law 25B1 because of Law 25A2.

 

I agree that this seems to be a Law 25 case.

[pran]

I agree that Law 25 seems to be the right law. Suppose opener's LHO accepts the change of call (25B1). I presume the subsequent calls (Pass by the opener's LHO, 2♣ by responder) are withdrawn, and the auction proceeds anew from the opening bid. The law doesn't seem to say that, but it doesn't make sense to me that those calls would stand.

 

I just cannot understand the logic used here:

 

Law 25 A. Unintended Call

 

1. Until his partner makes a call, a player may substitute his intended call for an unintended call but only if he does so, or attempts to do so, without pause for thought. The second (intended) call stands and is subject to the appropriate Law.

 

2. No substitution of call may be made when his partner has made a subsequent call.

 

3. ...

 

4. ...

 

Law 25 B. Call Intended

 

1. A substituted call not permitted by A may be accepted by the offender’s LHO. (It is accepted if LHO calls intentionally over it.) The first call is then withdrawn, the second call stands and the auction continues.

 

2. Except as in 1 a substitution not permitted by A is cancelled. The original call stands and the auction continues.

 

 

The (only) interesting question is which of Laws 25A2 and 25B1 takes precedence. May LHO accept the change of an intended call when the change comes too late, i.e. after offender's partner has subsequently called?

 

I don't see how this shall be possible. If we allow it then LHO must also be allowed to accept the change of an intended call after offender's RHO has subsequently called because nothing in Law 25B1 prevents this. I certainly hope that nobody will disagree with me this is ridiculous?

 

 

So all that remains is that the offender has created UI for his partner.

 

(If LHO deliberatly calls over the attempted change of call then we have an insufficient bid out of turn accepted by LHO, but else the auction just continues from the 2♣

bid)

[blackshoe]

I considered that possibility, David, but it seems to me that the wording of 25B1 would allow acceptance of the call, even when responder has already called. It does lead to the problem I pointed out, of course, and perhaps that's a reason to interpret it the other way. In reality, though, I expect this is another case where we really need guidance from the lawmakers as to what they actually intended.

[RMB1]

I think changes of call after LHO has called should be treated as calls out of rotation, in the same way that bids out of rotation before LHO has called are treated as changes of call.

 

The second part of Law 25 used to only apply when LHO had not called. Law 25B is still written as if LHO has not called - there is nothing said about the status of subsequent calls.

 

To me it is a consistent approach to apply the laws on calls out of rotation to calls made after LHO calls and before RHO calls, and use Law 25B for all calls made between a call and a call by LHO.

Later calls at LHO’s turn to call are treated as changes of call, 10 An illegal call by RHO is rectified as usual. and Law 25 applies.

[pran]

I think changes of call after LHO has called should be treated as calls out of rotation, in the same way that bids out of rotation before LHO has called are treated as changes of call.

 

The second part of Law 25 used to only apply when LHO had not called. Law 25B is still written as if LHO has not called - there is nothing said about the status of subsequent calls.

 

To me it is a consistent approach to apply the laws on calls out of rotation to calls made after LHO calls and before RHO calls, and use Law 25B for all calls made between a call and a call by LHO.

 

Law 25A can apply until partner has subsequently called.

 

Law 25B can logically not apply after LHO has subsequently called.

 

Laws 29 thru 32 (calls out of rotation) never apply on a call at LHO's turn to call if the offender has previously called.

[blackshoe]

Law 25B can logically not apply after LHO has subsequently called.

 

I'm not sure whether you mean that literally, or mean rather that Law 25B cannot logically apply after LHO has subsequently called. Either way, why not?

[pran]

I'm not sure whether you mean that literally, or mean rather that Law 25B cannot logically apply after LHO has subsequently called. Either way, why not?

Because there is no provision in Law 25B similar to Law 25A4 specifying what should happen to LHO's subsequent call in case he "accepts" the second call.

 

The 1997 Law 25B included the following rule which apparently was removed in 2007:

 

If offender’s LHO has called before attention is drawn to the infraction and the Director determines that LHO intended his call to apply over the offender’s original call at that turn, offender’s substituted call stands without penalty, and LHO may withdraw his call without penalty

 

Please consider the effect of this rule as it applied until 2007, and the effect of removing it from the laws?

[pran]

I believe it is time to sum up the application of law 25 as I am convinced it is intended:

 

Law 25A applies in any case where a player changes his call before his partner has subsequently called and his original call is accepted by the Director as having been an unintended call.

 

Otherwise Law 25B applies in any case where a player changes his call before his LHO has subsequently called.

 

Otherwise Law 29 applies in all other situations where a player changes his call.

 

In the situation that started this thread we have an insufficient bid made at RHO's turn to call. This bid may be accepted by the offender's LHO in which case the auction continues without further rectification. If LHO does not accept this IB out of turn it is cancelled, the turn to call goes back to RHO and Law 31 applies.

 

End of story?

[nige1]

TFLB L25A2. No substitution of call may be made when his partner has made a subsequent call.

'nuff said?

[blackshoe]

Yes, I'm aware of the bit from the 1997 law. I would say that either the lawmakers intended that 25A4 take precedence over 25B1, even though the current wording seems to say just the opposite, or that the currently "missing" bit you've pointed out should still be in the law, which of course it isn't. Either way, the lawmakers have screwed the pooch, and we TDs are stuck holding the bag. Again. <_<

 

Let's suppose for the sake of argument that 25B1 takes precedence over 25A4. So if we rule this is a "change of call" under Law 25, how do we proceed? We first ask opener's LHO if he wishes to accept the change of call. If he says no, the call (1♥) is withdrawn, Law 16D applies to it, so inferences from it are UI to responder, and life goes on. However, if LHO says yes, he wishes to accept the call, we have the problem that the law (25B) does not tell us what to do with the two calls which were made subsequent to the original call, but before the change. Nor is there another law which would tell us, afaics. So application of Law 25 has given us a problem. We do however have a second option. We can apply Law 27, considering that since Law 25 does not apply (per Law 25A4), the 1♥ call is both out of turn and insufficient. Again we ask LHO if he wishes to accept the call, and now if he says yes we have no problem - the auction proceeds normally from that point. If he says no, per Law 27A2, Law 31 applies, 1♥ is cancelled, and if RHO (whose turn it is to call) passes, opener must bid 1♥ again, and now we go back to Law 27, LHO again gets to choose whether to accept 1♥, and either way there is no problem not handled by the law. So it would seem that applying Law 25 directly may lead to a nonsense, and applying Law 27 directly does not.

 

Okay, it seems I agree with Sven: Law 25 does not apply. The "change of call" is treated as a new call, out of turn and insufficient. Is the general principle (that when one law leads to a problem, and another law does not, the second law is applied, and not the first) valid?

[gwnn]

I wish there was a way that when I'm defender I could legally accept the rectification, however absurd and illegal it is.. What if I called the director and asked him really nicely?

[bluejak]

Why not call me?

 

I would tell you that the wording of Law 25B makes it clear that Law 25B applies and Law 25B1 means you can accept it.

 

I would tell you that certain logic suggests it is a call out of turn rather than Law 25B so Law 29A gives you the right to accept it.

 

I would tell you that certain logic suggests it is an insufficient bid rather than Law 25B so Law 27A1 gives you the right to accept it.

 

So ask me nicely! :D

[pran]

I wish there was a way that when I'm defender I could legally accept the rectification, however absurd and illegal it is.. What if I called the director and asked him really nicely?

 

In this particular scenario you can! - under Law 29A.

 

Law 27 only applies if you refuse to accept the bid out of turn and RHO (your partner) then passes. Now you have an insufficient bid to consider, this you can accept under Law 27A

 

Law 25 never applies.

 

In most cases the laws allow an offender's LHO to accept an irregularity except when the irregularity is inadmissible by nature (like doubling partner's bid).

[pran]

Is the general principle (that when one law leads to a problem, and another law does not, the second law is applied, and not the first) valid?

I would say it slightly different: If the attempted application of a particular law leads to problems and/or self-contradictions the reason is usually that you try the wrong law.

 

Let me present a quiz that I used under the 1997 laws: How do you rule on an opening lead (i.e. to trick 1) from Dummy? Can Dummy's LHO for instance accept this lead under Law 55?

 

There was no way one could arrive at any sensible result if they started off from the laws on leads out of turn, the correct answer was of course (as is now specified in Law 54E) that the lead was a card exposed during the auction (Law 24B). This is essential when one realizes that presumed declarer and dummy can still become defenders in case of misinformation being revealed during the clarification period so that the auction is rolled back and continues.

[Coelacanth]

Yes, I'm aware of the bit from the 1997 law. I would say that either the lawmakers intended that 25A4 take precedence over 25B1,

...

Let's suppose for the sake of argument that 25B1 takes precedence over 25A4.

I must admit I'm puzzled by this turn of phrase. It seems meaningless to talk about 25A or 25B taking precedence over one another, as they apply to separate situations entirely.

 

25A applies to a (n attempted) change of an unintended call. ("I meant to bid 1♥ but the 1♠ bid card stuck to the top of the pile without my realizing.") 25B applies to an attempted change of an intended call. ("I bid 1♠ with my 5=5=2=1 hand but then noticed that one of my spades was actually a club, so my proper bid is 1♥."

 

Before applying either of these laws the TD determines whether the original call was intended or unintended, and decides which law to apply on that basis alone.

 

In the present case, it seems the original 1♠ call was unintended. 25A2 specifies that no change is allowed after partner has called, so the attempted 1♥ correction is an insufficient call out of turn. See Laws 27, 29, and 31.

 

Or am I missing something?

[pran]

I must admit I'm puzzled by this turn of phrase. It seems meaningless to talk about 25A or 25B taking precedence over one another, as they apply to separate situations entirely.

 

25A applies to a (n attempted) change of an unintended call. ("I meant to bid 1♥ but the 1♠ bid card stuck to the top of the pile without my realizing.") 25B applies to an attempted change of an intended call. ("I bid 1♠ with my 5=5=2=1 hand but then noticed that one of my spades was actually a club, so my proper bid is 1♥."

 

Before applying either of these laws the TD determines whether the original call was intended or unintended, and decides which law to apply on that basis alone.

 

In the present case, it seems the original 1♠ call was unintended. 25A2 specifies that no change is allowed after partner has called, so the attempted 1♥ correction is an insufficient call out of turn. See Laws 27, 29, and 31.

 

Or am I missing something?

 

NO!

[AndreSteff]

 

In the present case, it seems the original 1♠ call was unintended. 25A2 specifies that no change is allowed after partner has called, so the attempted 1♥ correction is an insufficient call out of turn. See Laws 27, 29, and 31.

 

Or am I missing something?

 

Please clarify why because Law 25A2 specifies that no change is allowed, Laws 27 etc. do apply?

 

Why couldn't I uphold that the attempt at correction is not allowed, Full Stop? After which Law 16 applies (as it would after applying Laws 27 etc). Opener has not made a second call, he has corrected his first one. I see no difference between what he has done now and an outcry of: "OMG, I made a terrible mistake, I should have opened hearts."

[pran]

Please clarify why because Law 25A2 specifies that no change is allowed, Laws 27 etc. do apply?

 

Why couldn't I uphold that the attempt at correction is not allowed, Full Stop? After which Law 16 applies (as it would after applying Laws 27 etc). Opener has not made a second call, he has corrected his first one. I see no difference between what he has done now and an outcry of: "OMG, I made a terrible mistake, I should have opened hearts."

 

Physically he has changed his call from 1♠ to 1♥. This is equivalent to making a new call and we have to treat it as a call and not only as a remark. As this happened after his partner's subsequent call Law 25 can no longer apply, the modified call is a call at RHO's turn to call, and we should go to Law 29. If instead we go to Law 27 (because the new call is also an insufficient bid) then Law 27A2 directs us straight to Law 31 which is where we would come also from Law 29.